Download Full Text (9.8 MB)


subject: lay readers




letter, McIlvaine, Bedell, church


Cinc. Sept. 15 1862

My dear Bishop

I enclose the form. The only head on which the [Journals] of our [Conventions] do not contain all that I have to say is that of the Fund for Judgement & [?] Clergy, which I have filled up. It is [nearly] correct. But as investments have changed several times in the three years & rates of interests, it would be a needless [trouble] to ascertain [precisely] was incom belonged to each year. It is correct with a few dollars more or less as to 1860 & 61, & correct as to the present. In regard to Lay Readers, I can give nothing. They are not permanent affairs & should be regarded only as make-shift. A clergyman writes for a [?] for a lay-reader. It is granted. He needs one because he is for a time [unwell]. He gets better. None is needed. Another [minister] succeeds. He may not want [that] man for lay ready, & recommends another when he needs me. What becomes of the former? Or should he have one whom he doesn’t like? If we make the lay Reader a permanency, we make him of too much [consequence]. He stays, while the ministers change. He becomes in [?] [country] parishes, a [power] & can trouble the minister more than he can help him. I don’t think they should be made of so much consequence as to be [?] in this form. Years ago, I kept a list of those I [licensed], but found it was of our use for I had no way of knowing who were considered or considered themselves as [?] after the emergency for which they were appointed [listed]. I think it should be regarded as a temporary thing, wholly subject to the will of the Rector, & in [?] of vacant parishes to be regulated by the Rector as soon as one is [Manned] either to cause the Lay Reader to cease or to have another appointed. Thence I can give no account of Lay Readers.

I note what you say about the [?]. When they came, they asked me what I thought of it. Having no account who had sanctioned it & especially not knowing but you had done so, while I was [?] I got not of the questions by saying I thought there were times when our College should pour out for the [army]. As they had come, I [made] as pleasant for them [as I] could, & did all I could to place them in good Company, & they are in as good as if they were at Gambier. The Co, [next] them, has [Presbn.], ministers & Licentiates in it, & yesterday (Sunday) after prayers by Mr. Hubbard, the companies in that [camp wanted] & a [Presbyn.] Minister of it peached. The boys will take no [?]. Mr. Clements was there yesterday P.M. & I supposed I should have seen him to-day but have not. [Charles] wrote me that he wanted to get the boys allowed to go home. This can be done in a few days. At present it would look too much as if they were fleeing [from] danger, as the enemy has not retired so far as was thought on Saturday. I will see to it. If the present [position] of things continues till the end of the week (i.e., 20,000 [disciplined] troops not further than 7 units from our lines & from [one] of the [finds] of the [?] / for it is so [low] that cavalry can find it at several points). I cannot go to my appointments [Zanesville] [bc] I have [given] above Gen. [?]’s estimate of their [force]. The cooler weather has so much [?] me that I shall be able to go to the Gen. Conv. if the Rebels will [please] to go so far off that I may.

I find I was mistaken about Pres. Allen’s [?]. It was [Goodwin] not Allen of whom [Max] [will write that]. I see no reason for [trying] [Goodwin] any longer, & would prefer Allen at any rate.

I have always seen & felt the evil of having the [Semy.] [so near] the College, but a change of a half [?] would not remedy it. It should be at least 20 units off, Cincinnati.

Rt. Rev. C. P. McIlvaine D.D.

I shall [?] [?] so that you may erase his name. I guess you will think I [must] be scant of paper.

Yours very affly.

Letter to Bishop Bedell